Clinical magnetic resonance image quality of the equine foot is significantly influenced by acquisition system.
Authors: Byrne Christian A, Marshall John F, Voute Lance C
Journal: Equine veterinary journal
Summary
# Editorial Summary: MRI Image Quality in Equine Feet—Does Your Imaging System Matter? When investigating lameness or foot pathology using magnetic resonance imaging, the quality of images directly determines diagnostic accuracy. Researchers at three clinical MRI facilities compared image quality across 15 equine foot studies (five per system) acquired on low-field standing, low-field anaesthetised, and high-field anaesthetised systems, with ten experienced observers rating entire studies and seven key anatomical structures using a standardised four-point grading scale. Both low-field standing and low-field anaesthetised systems produced diagnostic-quality images in 88–90% of cases with equivalent image grades for individual structures (all median grade 3), meaning anaesthesia made no meaningful difference at lower field strengths; however, high-field anaesthetised imaging achieved diagnostic quality in 100% of studies with significantly superior median grades (1 or 2) across all anatomical regions compared to low-field anaesthetised systems (all *P* <0.001). For practitioners and referral vets choosing imaging modalities, these findings indicate that field strength represents the dominant factor influencing diagnostic capability of equine foot MRI, whilst the logistics of standing versus general anaesthesia need not compromise image quality—a particularly valuable insight for facilities utilising low-field standing systems as a viable alternative to anaesthetised imaging.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •If your clinic has access to high-field MR imaging, expect substantially better diagnostic images of equine foot problems compared to low-field systems, regardless of whether the horse requires general anaesthesia
- •Standing low-field MR imaging produces equivalent diagnostic quality to anaesthetised low-field imaging, so standing exams may be a practical alternative when high-field systems aren't available
- •When referring cases for equine foot MR imaging, requesting a high-field system will likely yield superior diagnostic information compared to low-field alternatives
Key Findings
- •No significant difference in diagnostic quality between low-field standing (90%) and low-field anaesthetised (88%) MR imaging of equine feet (P = 0.7)
- •High-field anaesthetised imaging achieved 100% diagnostic quality studies compared to 88% for low-field anaesthetised (P = 0.03)
- •High-field anaesthetised systems produced significantly better median image quality grades (1-2) compared to low-field systems (grade 3) for all individual anatomical structures (P < 0.001)
- •Field strength is a more important determinant of MR image quality than anaesthesia status in clinical equine foot imaging